From 30 July 2018 the research publications of UK based University of Nottingham authors will be handled through the Research Information System (RIS).
To deposit an article after this date please Login to RIS and use the Outputs tab to Add New Output.
(See this blog for further information about this transition.)

Abstract

Is it acceptable and moral to sacrifice a few people’s lives to save many others? Research on moral dilemmas in psychology, experimental philosophy, and neuropsychology has shown that respondents judge utilitarian personal moral actions (footbridge dilemma) as less appropriate than equivalent utilitarian impersonal moral actions (trolley dilemma). Accordingly, theorists (e.g., Greene et al., 2001) have argued that judgments of appropriateness in personal moral dilemmas are more emotionally salient and cognitively demanding (taking more time to be rational) than impersonal moral dilemmas. Our novel findings show an effect of psychological accessibility (driven by partial contextual information; Kahneman, 2003) on utilitarian moral behavior and response time for rational choices. Enhanced accessibility of utilitarian outcomes through comprehensive information about moral actions and consequences boosted utility maximization in moral choices, with rational choices taking less time. Moreover, our result suggests that previous results indicating emotional interference, with rational choices taking more time to make, may have been artifacts of presenting partial information.

Item Type:

Article

Keywords:

Utility; moral dilemmas; accessibility; judgments; rational choice

Schools/Departments:

University of Nottingham, UK > Faculty of Science > School of Psychology